This does not sound as if this conversation violates FERPA because the teacher who has the student now is talking with a teacher who had the student the previous year. In the article, Balancing Student Privacy and School Safety, the author states “FERPA does not prohibit a school official from disclosing information about a student if the information is obtained through the school official’s personal knowledge or observation, and not from the student’s education records” (Dept. of Education). Of course, this is a short scenario therefore I am sure there is more to the story. I must ask who shared the knowledge of the conversation and what was their reason for telling an administrator? Where they upset over the location of the conversation
At Hazel East High School, the school has a sponsored newspaper called “The Spectrum” that is written and edited by the students. On May of 1983, the high school principal, Robert E. Reynolds, received the edited version of the May 13th edition. Upon inspecting the paper he found two articles that he found “inappropriate.” The two articles contained stories about divorce and teen pregnancy. The article on divorce featured a student who blamed her father’s actions for her parents’ divorce. The following article featured students at Hazelwood East and their experiences as teen parents in high school. Reynolds immediately asked for the two articles to be withheld from that weeks edition. Reynolds had concluded fairness required the father in the divorce article to be informed of the article and given the chance to make any comments. He also stated that changing the names of the girls in the teen pregnancy article may not be sufficient enough to keep them unidentified. Also, the topic is not suitable for younger students. As a result he forbid the two articles from being published. On October 13, 1987 Cathy Kuhlmeier (a student at Hazelwood East High) claimed that Hazelwood East High School was violating her First Amendment rights, and her case was
This case involves a sophomore at a high school named Christine Franklin, who alleged that she was sexually harassed and abused by a teacher and sports coach by the name of Andrew Hill. These allegations were occurring from 1986-1988, a total of two years. These allegations included Hill having explicit conversations with Franklin, forcing her to kiss him, and forceful intercourse on school grounds. Franklin claimed that she let teachers and administrators know about the harassment and that other students were going through the same harassment. The result of telling the teachers and administrators was that nothing was done about the situation and even encouraged Franklin not
High school student “John Doe” responded to peer teasing by choking the student and then kicking out a school window. Middle school student “Jack Smith” made sexual lewd comments to female classmates. Both had a history of hostile and aggressive behaviors that are manifestations of their disabilities. On the fifth day of the school suspension, the district notified both boys’ parents that they were proposing expulsion and they extended suspension until the expulsion proceedings were finished. Doe filed suit against the school district and the superintendent on grounds that the disciplinary actions violated the “stay-put” provision of the then Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) (later IDEA). Having learned of Doe’s case, Smith also protested the school’s actions and intervened in Doe’s
This case involved a public high school student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during school as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant principal told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the school's "disruptive-conduct rule." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises.
The history of the FERPA Act began in 1974 when the act became the law; up to that time there was very little legislation on privacy within schools (Groves & Groves, 1981). Senator Buckley of New York was concerned with the lack of privacy within schools; the Buckley Amendment was enacted on August 21, 1974 (Groves & Groves, 1981). The two hugely significant impacts of the amendment is 1) people are required to be informed of their rights. 2) Helps educators reflect on their record and document policies in order to avoid conflicts with federal law (Groves & Groves, 1981). There have been many cases since the Buckley law, which have specified regulations within schools, which have affected both state and district policies.
Why do schools NOT notify the police when a violent disturbance occurs? One would assume that when there is an assault or threat upon a student, the police would be the first people to be notified. When there is violence, or threats of violence against students in an academic setting, information about the threats and the troublesome student should be shared with the police. But Universities usually do not provide this information to the police. Lynn Daggett, a Professor at the Gonzaga University School of Law, states, “Schools struggle with whether, when, and how to involve police, both when students appear to present a threat to others, as in high profile cases, and also when the school suspects a student of criminal behavior” (Daggett). Although police are available and willing to be involved in school disturbances, schools do not involve the police more often than they should and cannot or will not give certain records about their students to the police.
How much privacy do we as the American people truly have? American Privacy is not directly guaranteed in any manner under the United States Constitution; however, by the Fourth Amendment, Americans are protected from illegal search and seizure. So then isn’t it ironic that in today’s modern world, nothing we do that it is in any way connected to the internet is guaranteed to remain discreet? A Google search, an email, a text message, or even a phone call are all at risk of being intercepted, traced, geo located, documented, and stored freely by the government under the guise of “protecting” the American people. Quite simply, the Government in order to protect us and our rights, is willing to make a hypocrite of itself and act as though our right is simply a privilege, and without any form of consent from the people, keep virtual tabs on each and every one of us. In the words of Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis “The right to privacy is a person's right to be left alone by the government... the right most valued by civilized men." Privacy isn’t just Privilege, it is nonnegotiable right, and deserves to be treated as such.
One of the issues that were brought up was an upset parent who mentioned that his child suffers from narcolepsy. He was addressing that he wants the school board to help him because he feels as if the principal is penalizing his daughter. He mentioned that the principal mentioned that he will penalize the girl because of her lateness. He also mentioned that the principal refused to acknowledge his daughter’s sickness and how the principal bullied him. Following this one of the members from the board address this issue by mentioning that this issue that the parent has addressed is a personal issue that really should not be mentioned in this meeting. The school board member also mentioned that this should not be acceptable from a principal to be uninvolved. And how no child should be treated like this. He would also mention that this issue will be
Grabber- We are all privileged to live in a free nation, where we can do what we desire. But, what if one day you were told that your school can monitor your every action on the interweb and can punish you for your online activities on and off campus? Well, certainly many students would protest without hesitating, for that they would no longer have privacy.
In document C, the school suspended the student, but that was because the student caused a threat against the targeted student, S.N. If the student did not target S.N. and say the students name and harm her directly then there would probably be no suspension. J.S created a MySpace profile (“the profile”) making fun of her middle school principal, James McGonigle. The profile did not name the principal or his school, but did include a photo of him and contained some vulgar and offensive language. J.S. did not name the principal or the school, she did not directly target the principal even though a photo of the principal was on the page.
Most people in society think they don't have anything to hide. Everyone has the Right to privacy in technology, medical, personal life and many more areas. Its all has been an issue, sense as far back as anyone can remember. Most people in society don’t realize that it’s a much bigger issue than what it sounds to be. As many of you may not know but the 14th amendment has been involved in may cases that had to do with the Right to Privacy.
In Lecture 26 of INFO 3200’s Spring 2014 offering, the instructor talks about the concept of privacy in new media and society. This is a popular topic of conversation in the public sphere. In a world in which the easiest way to keep track of someone is to do so online, it is essential that we know and control what information others get access to.
not do much, it did set a precedent for later acts. Its wording was built on over
The privacy of the individual is the most important right. Without privacy, the democratic system that we know would not exist. Privacy is one of the fundamental values on which our country was founded. There are exceptions to privacy rights that are created by the need for defense and security.
In the 21st century, digital media has gain popularity from young adults. There are over 1 billion users solely registered on Facebook (Solberg, 2014). However, issues of privacy and publicity are being brought to attention, though it has been used in problematic ways such as academic research, personal reputation, or policing. The faulty policies of social media websites like Facebook are potentially putting users at risk and are outweighing the benefits, which in turn can negatively impact their social perceptions.